The Topic: Dresses with pockets
The Debate: This yearâ€™s Oscar darling Jennifer Hudson got dinged for wearing a Red Carpet gown outfitted with -â€“ of all things -â€“ pockets. But itâ€™s not just Red Carpet gowns that are getting this tomboyish treatment. You can find plenty a casual dress with pockets, too like this Free People Baggy Pocket Flirty Dress ($128). It’s only one of thousands out there right now defying an unwritten rule that pockets belong on pants and pants alone.
Donâ€™t get me wrong, pockets are fab. Theyâ€™re great for a quick stash-and-go, they limit bulky baggage in tight-squeeze bars, and thereâ€™s always the chance Iâ€™ll find a $10 bill in mine. But they defy the very purpose of dresses, that is, to make you feel pretty and girly. Jamming your hands deep in the pockets of a dress does nothing for your shape (think hunched shoulders, stumpy arms and two big wads of fabric adding unnecessary bulk to your hips). And letâ€™s not forget that pockets negate the need for two of fashionâ€™s greatest pleasures: a fantastic handbag and a fabulous manicure.
The Verdict: In my opinion, we need to keep pockets where they belong -â€“ on pants and shorts. What do you think? Do dresses with pockets hit all the bases of form and function, or are they a good, utilitarian idea gone horribly awry? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.